Author
Topic: A Thought about Genesis (Read 6157 times)

God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Eve said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. "

This comes up a lot with theists, and we quickly reach the point where we are told that the specific words used show that Yahweh was talking about a spiritual death, or an end to the eternal life they were having. And I've always accepted that.

But the other day I looked at it again, and Eve is quite clearly convinced that Yahweh meant the "instant death" version, because it is that version of death that the serpent is responding to. Whether the serpent knew the truth or not is irrelevant - what matters is that it seems clear that Eve was convinced that Yahweh meant "eat, and keel over dead".

And that is the thing that gives me pause, because if his creation was unclear about what was going to happen, where should the blame lie? Absolutely, 100%, with the omniscient creator, who decided what message he was going to impart. If he wanted Adam and Eve to be totally clear about the tree, then it was entirely in his power to do it. He had all the knowledge and ability to make them totally clear about what the tree was all about - yet he did not do so.

So to me, the correct translation of what Yahweh meant when he said "death" is beside the point. The point is that the message that he managed to transmit to his creation was wrong. He makes himself unclear, and there are terrible consequences.....a lesson that he seems to have learned nothing from for the next few thousand years.

God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Eve said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. "

This comes up a lot with theists, and we quickly reach the point where we are told that the specific words used show that Yahweh was talking about a spiritual death, or an end to the eternal life they were having. And I've always accepted that.

But the other day I looked at it again, and Eve is quite clearly convinced that Yahweh meant the "instant death" version, because it is that version of death that the serpent is responding to. Whether the serpent knew the truth or not is irrelevant - what matters is that it seems clear that Eve was convinced that Yahweh meant "eat, and keel over dead".

And that is the thing that gives me pause, because if his creation was unclear about what was going to happen, where should the blame lie? Absolutely, 100%, with the omniscient creator, who decided what message he was going to impart. If he wanted Adam and Eve to be totally clear about the tree, then it was entirely in his power to do it. He had all the knowledge and ability to make them totally clear about what the tree was all about - yet he did not do so.

So to me, the correct translation of what Yahweh meant when he said "death" is beside the point. The point is that the message that he managed to transmit to his creation was wrong. He makes himself unclear, and there are terrible consequences.....a lesson that he seems to have learned nothing from for the next few thousand years.

The story does not make sense in so many ways, God (creator of you and the universe) tells you something you listen (at least you do if you understand). Of course naivete could play in there, Adam and Eve were as children who did not know what death was, nor know what lying was because both did not exist so they had no frame of reference. If I gave my kid a gun at 2 and told them it was deadly, should I blame them if they shoot their leg off? Do they understand what dangerous is?

Can we agree it would have been difficult for adam and eve to understand gods statement.

1) There was no death, so adam and eve would have had difficulty understanding 2) there was no evil in the garden of eden (well except for the snake)3) Adam and Eve hand not experienced lying so they were easily fooled

Quote

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

I believe that it would have read more like this to adam and eve.

Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and SOMETHING, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely SOMETHING

Now had god said something more like this.

Instead he said in essence (in a very passive way), Hey adam and eve I wouldn't do that or something will happen.

Finally if Sin did not exist in Eden, how did the snake lie to Adam and Eve?

Perhaps another crucial point: neither Adam nor Eve would at this point have experienced "lying". One being has told them one thing, another has told them something different. They would have no concept that some beings would tell a falsehood.

On the other hand, they have previous experience that Yahweh makes mistakes.

He created Adam alone, then realised that a single human was a bad thing.

He thought an animal would be a good companion, then realised THAT was wrong.

So Eve would already have experience that - twice - Yahweh had done something that proved to be incorrect. So when the snake said "Yahweh got it wrong about the tree", she would be far more likely to think "ah, another mistake by god that is now being corrected" than "this snake is lying....whatever lying is".

Final point: Yahweh never FORBADE them from eating of the tree. He said "if you eat it, you will die" - which is a crucial difference, especially when considering Yahweh's history of mistakes. Yahweh warned of consequences, he did not forbid. So when the snake "revealed" Yahweh's error, there was no element of disobeying in Eve's response, simply a realisation that another one of Yahweh's errors had been revealed.

The more I consider this little tale, the more it becomes clear how ALL the blame lies squarely at Yahweh's feet.

Final point: Yahweh never FORBADE them from eating of the tree. He said "if you eat it, you will die" - which is a crucial difference, especially when considering Yahweh's history of mistakes. Yahweh warned of consequences, he did not forbid. So when the snake "revealed" Yahweh's error, there was no element of disobeying in Eve's response, simply a realisation that another one of Yahweh's errors had been revealed.

The more I consider this little tale, the more it becomes clear how ALL the blame lies squarely at Yahweh's feet.

I think the "thou shalt not" in precedence is a forbidding, actually. But, the thing that comes to mind with the OP, is that there are multiple instances where a literal verbiage is twisted by apologists to mean something different than it seems. The phrase "surely die" is found more than once in the Bible, but only in the story of the original sin is it used to indicate a"spiritual death."

The "entire world" was flooded in the flood story, but many old earth creationists insist that the flood was regional, since they are at least intelligent enough to recognize the extreme lack of evidence that the entire planet was covered with water.

The number of "days" it took to create the world is another example where, for pure convenience, days really meant "time periods, or epochs", instead of actual 24 hour days, like the rest of the Bible.

Final point: Yahweh never FORBADE them from eating of the tree. He said "if you eat it, you will die" - which is a crucial difference, especially when considering Yahweh's history of mistakes. Yahweh warned of consequences, he did not forbid. So when the snake "revealed" Yahweh's error, there was no element of disobeying in Eve's response, simply a realisation that another one of Yahweh's errors had been revealed.

I think the "thou shalt not" in precedence is a forbidding, actually.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Debatable. If I say "don't touch that wire, you will die", which are you most likely to take as my reasoning?

I am commanding you never to touch the wire. That it will kill you is of secondary consideration.

That I am striving to ensure you don't get hurt. That touching it would be disobeying me is of secondary importance.

Certainly from my perspective, I would have said it was the latter. Remember also that EVERYTHING else Yahweh was said and done to the couple was from that latter perspective - of trying to make things nice as possible for them. Authoritarian obedience hasn't really got a look in. So again, given Yahweh's propensity for mistakes, I still think it was entirely reasonable for them to think "oh, well that's okay then", and never give "disobeying" a thought.

Whether Yahweh's intention was to be commanding isn't the point - as an omnimax deity, if that WAS his intention, it should have been crystal clear. Indeed, I'd go so far as so say that he specifically muddied the waters. Had he said "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" - Full Stop - then it would have been completely clear it was a COMMAND. By adding the (debatable) codicil to it, Yahweh opened the door for the serpent's lawyering.....something an omnimax god should surely have taken into account.

Final point: Yahweh never FORBADE them from eating of the tree. He said "if you eat it, you will die" - which is a crucial difference, especially when considering Yahweh's history of mistakes. Yahweh warned of consequences, he did not forbid. So when the snake "revealed" Yahweh's error, there was no element of disobeying in Eve's response, simply a realisation that another one of Yahweh's errors had been revealed.

The more I consider this little tale, the more it becomes clear how ALL the blame lies squarely at Yahweh's feet.

Even today I am not exactly sure what a spiritual death is. I understand spiritual and death as words but I have no reference for what spiritual life looks like. It is pretty much as difficult for me to imagine time not existing before the universe formed.

I think the "thou shalt not" in precedence is a forbidding, actually. But, the thing that comes to mind with the OP, is that there are multiple instances where a literal verbiage is twisted by apologists to mean something different than it seems. The phrase "surely die" is found more than once in the Bible, but only in the story of the original sin is it used to indicate a"spiritual death."

[/quote]

Again with no frame of reference, this is like the parents of a spoiled child who decide one day to enforce a new rule on their kid. There is a learning curve required to let them understand the consequences. Very few childrens guides recommending killing your kid for mistakes but rather through positive reinforcement allow the kids to see the value in obedience.

A and E clearly needed a Biblical apologist on hand to explain spiritual death (and death as well) to them. They had no clue they were naked, so expecting them to comprehend a nuanced threat from a bumbling court jester of a deity was a bit of a stretch. Even YHWH confirmed their ignorance - "Who told you you were naked?" I wish we had a few more of his quotes: "What's wrong with a sheep as a mate?" "That, Adam, is a penis - I added that since you whined about needing a mate." "I know you all aren't hungry and have no need for food, but you have to eat - it's important for the story later."

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

Two things, one ... the whole scenario is one great big catch 22 ... God tells them to not do X ... but to know that not listening to god is bad, they'd need knowledge of good and evil, which they can only get by doing the X they weren't supposed to in the first place.

two ... being naked is BAAAAAAAD ... they gain knowledge of good and evil and instantly realise this. So ... why did god let them run around naked, if it's so bad? Does he get his jollies from seeing humans naked? Is that what the omnipresence is for?

Logged

Science: I'll believe it when I see itFaith: I'll see it when I believe it

Gee, the story seems to have some holes in it. As Neopagan pointed out, A&E lacked access to modern theological thinking, so they had no one to advise them on the specifics of the banned tree or to explain the long-term consequences. Because not only did they not know about lying, nor death, but they also lacked any realistic concept of time. And as epidemic said, they had no way of understanding how being bad (not understood) would permanently alter the state of human affairs. Nor were they given the complete story. Had god said "Hey, if you eat from that tree, I'll eventually have to drown most of the planet, rape a virgin and have myself a kid that I'll then have to kill, then wait around a few more thousand or tens of thousands of years or whatever to send him down again and save the planet, and it would just be easier if you would not eat from the tree that I so carelessly put there."

At which point, A&E could ask a few questions, like "What is lying, what is death, what is eventually, what's a planet, what is drown, what is rape, what's a virgin, what's a kid, what is killing, what are thousands, what are years, what is saving and what does careless mean?"

The dude took the time to sit down with Adam and name all the animals, but he couldn't spend ten more minutes with the innocent couple to explain things a bit more clearly? He couldn't have couched the problem in a more meaningful way. Like taking them to the edge of the garden and showing them the desert or whatever was beyond (they got cast into something, so I'm guessing it was a little less desirable) and said "Do as I command and you will get to stay in this beautiful place with that tempting tree forever. Eat from the tree, and you have to go live out there where it is dry and there are few trees to eat from and stuff. I am testing you, and I have no tolerance for failure. Even though I'm infinite, I have a tiny mind and no imagination, so you guys are kind of up sh*t creek without a paddle, a concept you'll never need to have explained if you just stay away from that tree. And by the way, there is a serpent crawling around the garden that talks and he'll try to convince you otherwise, but don't listen to him. If you do, out you go, and I'll have to write a big long book full of silly stories and inconsistencies that will fuel thousands of years of warfare, and I'll have to do it without a word processor because its too early for that."

"And by the way, kids, I know you'll fail because I'm omnipotent and I didn't take any preventative measures when I designed and built you two from mud and bone. A tiny adjustment to genes here and there and both of you would be completely complaint. But that would be too responsible of me." sayeth the lord.

Little tip to theists: Silly stories should be a dead giveaway. Its all fake.

Want one way to tell Adam wasn't built with any critical thinking skills and should get a pass for supposedly wanting to snub his nose at the creator? When YHWH told him - "See that tree over there, don't eat any of it or you'll surely die," he might have asked almighty omnimax "why the frack did you put such a thing in paradise, dude?" (Assuming YHWH had explained death LOL)

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

Something I've always wondered about the story; how much "free will" did Adam have? Not only did god talk to him directly (apparently, a big no-no, according to the free will arguement), but Adam was created as a full-grown adult (evidently), and automatically knew how to walk, talk, listen to and interpret commands, name all the animals, and had his own sets of values (he felt there was nothing wrong with being naked). A newborn would not know how to do all those things, so presumably, he (and Eve) came with some amount of "pre-programming".

Doesn't seem right to accuse Adam and Eve of sinning if they were just following faulty programming.

Could you imagine what these two dunces would have been like as parents? They didn't have a baseline of experience to go on other than the piss-poor info from the omnimax. No wonder Cain killed his brother - he'd heard stories about magic fruit and as a farmer he wasn't buying the whole burned goat is a sweet aroma story...

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

Could you imagine what these two dunces would have been like as parents? They didn't have a baseline of experience to go on other than the piss-poor info from the omnimax. No wonder Cain killed his brother - he'd heard stories about magic fruit and as a farmer he wasn't buying the whole burned goat is a sweet aroma story...

Don't forget the first official puinshment for the first official murder.

"You shall be a fugitive and a vagabond... and no one shall be allowed to kill you! Also, you shall get a hot wife, and establish a city, and your decendents shall do all sorts of awesome things!"

Yep... a little messed up.

On a more serious note, after Cain killed Abel, he goes "every one that findeth me shall slay me". So... Adam and Eve would've killed their own son? They're the only other people around at this point, so that passage should read "if mom and dad findeth me, they shall slay me". They sure got bloodthirsty so fast!

They're the only other people around at this point, so that passage should read "if mom and dad findeth me, they shall slay me". They sure got bloodthirsty so fast!

Never thought about it but as the first official death in the world, I would think it would have been an interesting thought process that went through mom and dads head. I would think it would have taken some time to deal with the death to even understand what it really meant.

A and E were 130 when they had the replacement son (Seth), so not a whole lot of years to be cranking out tons of people for the new earth... Assuming no daughters, Eve was the only game in town for poor old Cain to father his city.

It gets more and more crazy when you think about any of the details (oh, never mind - goddidit!)

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

A and E were 130 when they had the replacement son (Seth), so not a whole lot of years to be cranking out tons of people for the new earth...

I'm unsure of Eve's date of death as I don't think it's mentioned in the Bible or any non-canonical scripture, but Adam lived til the rip old age of 930. Assuming she lived for several hundred years like he did then that would be quite a lot of time for reproduction.

This may sound like a stupid question but were A&E vegetarians? If they were meat eaters they would have understood what "death" was. Unless God just served up the steak,burgers,lambchops without them knowing they were animals.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

This may sound like a stupid question but were A&E vegetarians? If they were meat eaters they would have understood what "death" was. Unless God just served up the steak,burgers,lambchops without them knowing they were animals.

This may sound like a stupid question but were A&E vegetarians? If they were meat eaters they would have understood what "death" was. Unless God just served up the steak,burgers,lambchops without them knowing they were animals.

Like hotdogs?

mmmmmm lips and assholes

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

This may sound like a stupid question but were A&E vegetarians? If they were meat eaters they would have understood what "death" was. Unless God just served up the steak,burgers,lambchops without them knowing they were animals.

I was always under the impression that they were vegetarians before the fall (as were all the animals which later became carnivorous). I suppose once they saw the lions start eating the gazelles, maybe they decided to try meat as well. Except they tended more toward the slower things, like cows.

Makes one wonder why god would have created all those lions, tigers and bears with big ol' canine teeth if they were supposed to subsist on grass and berries, though. I think A&E did them a big favor when they ate that apple.

I was always under the impression that they were vegetarians before the fall (as were all the animals which later became carnivorous). I suppose once they saw the lions start eating the gazelles, maybe they decided to try meat as well. Except they tended more toward the slower things, like cows.

Makes one wonder why god would have created all those lions, tigers and bears with big ol' canine teeth if they were supposed to subsist on grass and berries, though. I think A&E did them a big favor when they ate that apple.

In Genesis it mentions somewhere that God gave A&E bushes and trees to munch on, and to the animals he gave the plants. So I think you're right about the vegan diet in Eden. As for those sharp carnivorous fangs, well, they'll be used for wheat and oats in heaven according to Isaiah 65:25:

New Heavens and a New Earth...25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food.They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,”says the Lord.

Completely changing the dietary needs of a lion, reconstructing internal organs for processing strictly plants, and not to mention its neurological wiring and natural predatory behavior- you just can't beat that Yahweh Magic™!

Never thought about it but as the first official death in the world, I would think it would have been an interesting thought process that went through mom and dads head. I would think it would have taken some time to deal with the death to even understand what it really meant.

Whatever the case, god agreed with Cain's thought that mum and daddy would kill him ("the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him"). I have to wonder, what kind of disciplinarians were Adam and Eve? Those guys were the world's first parents. I wonder if they were strict and harsh, considering Cain is quick to think that they'll kill him for what he did. (granted, it is an extreme case, but it's all we have to work with) You'd think the bible would say something about what kind of parents they were. All we get is that they taught their kids to be farmers, and... that's it.

Could you imagine what these two dunces would have been like as parents? They didn't have a baseline of experience to go on other than the piss-poor info from the omnimax. No wonder Cain killed his brother - he'd heard stories about magic fruit and as a farmer he wasn't buying the whole burned goat is a sweet aroma story...

But let's also not forget Yahweh's part in the first murder.

Cain and Abel are doing their best from their understanding. Cain was brought up and specialised as a farmer, Abel specialised as a shepherd - presumably so that the family could have a varied "meat & 2 veg" diet. Chances are that Cain feels he is doing the slightly more important job - after all, as Zankuu says, originally they all ate veggies in the garden, so Cain thinks he's more in tune with what Yahweh thinks is good.

So, they both offer some of their goods up to Yahweh. And what does Yahweh do? He says to Cain "I don't respect your offering. Don't get angry with me, its YOUR fault for being such a sinful failure you can't get your act together".

Sure: Cain wielded the rock, or the stick. But in any court today we'd certainly be considering charges against the being who egged him on and called him useless. Especially when that being knows exactly how Cain would be likely to react to such harsh words.

Side point: Yahweh is often held up to us as an example of a "good parent" by Christians. So tell me, fellows with more than one child, if one of your children does a lot better than the other, which is the BETTER parenting, from the options below?

1) "You are so stupid and uselsss - why can't you be more like your brother?"2) "Well done for your effort, I can see you tried hard. Maybe next time you might want to try this instead, to make your sacrifice even better?"

The test would be fine if he qualified as a good teacher. In the story, as told, he was pretty bad at that. Adam was essentially a first grader with the fate of all mankind on his shoulders, and he got one lesson, one sentence long. Then he gets a girlfriend, which was probably distracting, then she failed his test, and here we are today, still dealing with the consequences.

If it really happened, it would be ridiculous. That people today believe the story is sad. It gives too many a reason for being bad, and too many that believe the story accept it as a legitimate reason for human failings, rather than trying to understand our biologically and socially evolved psychology.

It is a lie that creates many a sad truth. That is not a good thing.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

I have to wonder, what kind of disciplinarians were Adam and Eve? Those guys were the world's first parents. I wonder if they were strict and harsh, considering Cain is quick to think that they'll kill him for what he did. (granted, it is an extreme case, but it's all we have to work with)

In answer to your question (bolded mine) - I'd say they were just like YHWH... they flew off the handle at the slightest "offense" against them and instantly thought of severely punishing their progeny or even killing them... Exactly what they had witnessed in the fabled garden. Monkey see, monkey do.

StarStuff has this on his "quotes" thread, and I now have it on a post it note on my monitor: "Why would anyone turn to god for advice on child rearing? He drowned all his own."

« Last Edit: September 24, 2013, 09:57:41 AM by neopagan »

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan